Fiscally conservative / socially liberal is a term I hear a lot. I always read "socially liberal" to talk about issues that don't have much financial impact. Civil rights, gay rights, abortion, etc....

Fiscal deals with financial impact and tends to be completely separate. Fiscal conservatives will say they want to limit government spending even if it positively impacts social groups but particularly for wasteful spending, whereas fiscally liberal will say that spending should be escalated and some of the more privileged should foot the bill.

1. End the drug war. Both sides love it. It makes them look tough on crime and gets police unions and prison builders on their side. Bonus points because it would reduce government spending dramatically.

2. No unnecessary wars. I'm not a pacifist. There are certain conflicts where we should use our military and others where shouldn't (Afghanistan vs Iraq). More bonus points for reducing government spending.

3. End corporate personhood. I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. Neither side will do anything about that.

4. Publicly funded elections. No union contributions, no PAC or Super PAC money. We need to take the fundraising out of politics.

5. Reduce/eliminate corporate welfare. Special tax breaks are killing municipalities and federal government revenue. If it's a fledgling industry or actually needs subsidies that's fine but the race to the bottom needs to stop. Hey, more deficit reduction here.

6. Single payor health care like France's system. We spend entirely too much on healthcare for piss poor results.

7. Gay marriage. It's 2013, if you're against it, then you are ****ing retard.

8. Civil rights. Our nation has been creeping more and more towards a police state since the introduction of the drug war. We need to place higher priority on privacy and the 4th amendment.

__________________
The diameter of your knowledge is the circumference of your actions. Ras Kass

I have to agree with Pat here. There's going to be a wide array of what fiscally conservative really is.

The problem is that you're talking in absolutes. Like you have to oppose every single spending decision to be considered fiscal conservative. Or you have to support every single moral/religious stance like pro-life to be considered socially conservative.

We're talking about which way people tend to lean. There are extremes on either side of those (very staunch religious, or very staunch fiscal conservatism). There's also plenty of people who are more toward the middle, but the primary filter they use is, for example, should the government be spending on this?

Im socially liberal / fiscal conservative as a moderate. Because on more stances than not, I hate government spending. Even if on plenty of positions, I think government spending is absolutely justified (and I get that fiscal conservatism applies to more than just government spending).

Im socially liberal / fiscal conservative as a moderate. Because on more stances than not, I hate government spending. Even if on plenty of positions, I think government spending is absolutely justified (and I get that fiscal conservatism applies to more than just government spending).

Moderate usually means a mix from both sides but it does not have to divide along social or fiscal lines.

If your justified areas for spending are not based on Constitution though, then it's not fiscal conservativism.

There's another area besides social versus fiscal— and that is expansion of the central govt's powers. One of the main ideas behind our Constitution was to limit it's expansion and giving it more money doesn't do that. That giving it access to money easily would eventually reduce liberty.

I think food stamps should be much more of a last resort than how they are currently being implemented. I vehemently oppose auto-signing up people who may be down on their luck, or just make most of their money under the table (ie - strippers).

While I don't think the Iraq war was justified, I do recognize that in the long run it will probably be a huge boost to our interests to have a "base" and major ally in the region.

I think drone strikes are probably a necessary evil, considering the cost of letting that whole region go to the Taliban. I'm willing to let history be the judge on that much more than my armchair QBing liberal friends.

I think public sector unions are a terrible idea whose time is up.

I'm all for charter schools and think most large urban districts should be disintegrated.

While I don't think the Iraq war was justified, I do recognize that in the long run it will probably be a huge boost to our interests to have a "base" and major ally in the region.

Your in a dream world there. We have 200 troops in Iraq and no bases. What the hell are you thinking?

Google is your friend

Bahrain has the 3rd largest USA Naval base in the world. It can handle 2 complete Aircraft carrier groups at the same time.

Qatar has the biggest and best base in the middle east.

These will remain our "friends" forever. They are rich and have no way to defend themselves against their Arab neighbors that would want to take their treasure. By our mere presence, we are the security guards guarding their treasure that cant be replaced.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

If the Cardinals were in the American league they would be a middle of the pack team

There could be huge cuts here without putting the troops or the country at risk. However there are too many buddy buddy deals involved. When defense is cut it is aimed at the wrong places~

Yes, the defense industry is our largest social jobs program in the country. We spend entirely too much on failed weapon systems. Weapon systems that the military has said they never wanted or needed. Etc

__________________
The diameter of your knowledge is the circumference of your actions. Ras Kass

I think food stamps should be much more of a last resort than how they are currently being implemented. I vehemently oppose auto-signing up people who may be down on their luck, or just make most of their money under the table (ie - strippers).

I think the SEC does more harm than good due to regulatory capture.

I'm fine with food stamps as it is. It mitigates damage to kids done by parents who don't have their priorities straight. But no we shouldn't be autosigning people up. I wasn't aware that was being done.

On the SEC, I wouldn't say more harm than good but regulatory capture is over the top right now. If our regulators made better salaries, we would see less regulatory capture. The SEC is cracking down on insider trading currently. They are finally going after the big boys on that now. It's nice. Under Bush's SEC they only went after small fries.

__________________
The diameter of your knowledge is the circumference of your actions. Ras Kass

Yes, the defense industry is our largest social jobs program in the country. We spend entirely too much on failed weapon systems. Weapon systems that the military has said they never wanted or needed. Etc

That and contracts/ contractors performing jobs troops can do just as effectively for well less than half the cost~

Moderate usually means a mix from both sides but it does not have to divide along social or fiscal lines.

If your justified areas for spending are not based on Constitution though, then it's not fiscal conservativism.

There's another area besides social versus fiscaló and that is expansion of the central govt's powers. One of the main ideas behind our Constitution was to limit it's expansion and giving it more money doesn't do that. That giving it access to money easily would eventually reduce liberty.

So moderate's today, are in the BIG govt camp.

The idea that if you don't believe in rubber-stamping spending on constitutional principals, that makes you big government is silly.

I label myself as fiscally conservative because I believe every spending initiative should go through a sniff test, and that that has to go beyond profit/loss and ROI. I don't mind government spending as long as there's a clear benefit and as long as it can't be done more efficiently in the private sector. That means I reject probably about 3/4 of spending on principal. Only an extreme fiscal conservative would label that position as being pro-big government.